[dnsext] RFC5395bis-02 advancement notice
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Mon, 29 November 2010 16:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8B33A6C23; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:26:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iymFLOa2oqx1; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AAA3A6BD2; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oATGRxZU090269; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:27:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com)
Message-ID: <4CF3D48D.3090406@ogud.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:27:57 -0500
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext-ads@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: [dnsext] RFC5395bis-02 advancement notice
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:26:58 -0000
Ralph, as you instructed us here is a replacement document for RFC5395, please advance this through the IESG as soon as possible. Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt Olafur & Andrew ------- (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? DNSEXT co-chair Olafur Gudmundsson (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes adequate review, No concerns about the quality of the review. Note this document is a minor update from RFC5395 the changes are - working group email list has changed - minor inconsistency in two sections has been aligned. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? NO (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. NO (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong, (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) NO (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? There are 3 warnings on the document, two are wrong as they confuse regular expression part with reference, one is warning about the boilerplate template being older that recommended, the editor and chairs agreed that to keeps differences from RFC5395 to minimum we would use the same template as the RFC used. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Checked no changes from RFC5395, IANA will need to update references from 5395 to this document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? yes I checked the regular expressions. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Technical Summary: The document obsoletes RFC5395 "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations" there is one major change: The mailing list for the working group has changed and the old address was embedded in the expert review for new RR types. There is also a small change that fixes inconsistency in who does what during the expert review. Working Group Summary The working group held a short limited scope LC, with restrictions on what could be changed. We accepted one change that fixed a known inconsistency in RFC5395, but rejected other suggested changes as being out of scope. We request accelerated processing by the IESG on this document. Document Quality: High quality
- [dnsext] RFC5395bis-02 advancement notice Olafur Gudmundsson